From a Materialist view will the future have Religion, and should it?

Author: Critical-Tim
Society
Morality
Religion
Atheism
Materialism

Posts

Total: 103
Topic's author
#61
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@cristo71
Are you talking about the US? Not really. I wasn’t limiting this to the US, but voting isn’t usually how working philosophies gain traction, with the exception of electing politicians who espouse a certain philosophy upfront.

Again, look at history for clues. Sometimes it happens via revolution, sometimes via social evolution, and sometimes via democratic political processes. Perhaps there are other avenues I haven’t thought of.

My central point is that humans need something to believe in, whether that something is a deity or not.
I wasn't suggesting a vote, rather I was asking for a variety of perspectives with evidence to back up their claims.

It's apparent that history has the clues, it's just a matter of interpreting or discovering the consistencies. Would you explain your view of what history has taught us?

I agree, humans need a central point of belief in something. Belief is what unifies a society and keeps it strong.
Topic's author
#62
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@TwoMan
I wasn't proposing a majority vote. I was asking from the perspective of his, how can one choose the correct system of beliefs. I was trying to better understand his reasoning.
#63
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Critical-Tim
Your first post to me:

I suppose the most complicated part of this hypothesis would be deciding which would be the most favorable. Would you say that they should be determined based on a majority vote?
And your subsequent claims:

I wasn't suggesting a vote

I wasn't proposing a majority vote
Eh… what? You most certainly introduced the subject of voting. Whether it was your “suggestion” or not,  your “proposal” or not, is very secondary to the goals of clarity, intellectual honesty, and avoiding semantic entanglements in this forum.

It's apparent that history has the clues, it's just a matter of interpreting or discovering the consistencies. Would you explain your view of what history has taught us?
Well, I’ll just use the US as a historical example. The land was originally settled by pioneers with strong, unifying religious beliefs. The nation itself was founded by men with a strong belief in classical liberalism and a definite fear of tyranny and totalitarianism. These ideas were finally implemented via revolution and agreement upon installing a constitutional republic. So, revolution is an avenue; belief in representative government is an avenue.

Social evolution just happens as a matter of course. That can involve any endless number of things, from theism to hedonism. And, as I said, different leaders espouse different central doctrines, be they “Manifest Destiny,” “Return to Normalcy,” neoconservativism, America First… the list is virtually endless. So, yes, majority vote does play into it, I just wouldn’t say that it would never be presented like this:

“Today, we bring up a national referendum: will our nation be founded upon humanism, or will it be founded upon objectivism? The majority will decide.”
#64
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
Edit for clarity:

*I just would not say it would ever be presented like this*
#65
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@cristo71
 The land was originally settled by pioneers with strong, unifying religious beliefs
Yes, European settlers killed 56 million indigenous people over about 100 years in South, Central and North America.
Thank God for Religion.
#66
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Remember that Hitler gave belt buckles to his soldier's that said: God is with Us.
#67
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@FLRW
How could I forget?
Topic's author
#68
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@cristo71
I suppose the most complicated part of this hypothesis would be deciding which would be the most favorable. Would you say that they should be determined based on a majority vote?
And your subsequent claims:

I wasn't suggesting a vote

I wasn't proposing a majority vote
Eh… what? You most certainly introduced the subject of voting. Whether it was your “suggestion” or not,  your “proposal” or not, is very secondary to the goals of clarity, intellectual honesty, and avoiding semantic entanglements in this forum.
I'm sorry for the miscommunication, I acknowledge that it is a common occurrence in specific dialogue. For this reason, I always try my best to use words precisely as they're defined. When I stated, "would you say," I was not suggesting what I would say, but what you would say. This was meant to be my understanding of how they would suggest majority vote to be the solution, and I was curious if it wasn't majority vote what the alternative would be.

It's apparent that history has the clues, it's just a matter of interpreting or discovering the consistencies. Would you explain your view of what history has taught us?
Well, I’ll just use the US as a historical example. The land was originally settled by pioneers with strong, unifying religious beliefs. The nation itself was founded by men with a strong belief in classical liberalism and a definite fear of tyranny and totalitarianism. These ideas were finally implemented via revolution and agreement upon installing a constitutional republic. So, revolution is an avenue; belief in representative government is an avenue.

Social evolution just happens as a matter of course. That can involve any endless number of things, from theism to hedonism. And, as I said, different leaders espouse different central doctrines, be they “Manifest Destiny,” “Return to Normalcy,” neoconservativism, America First… the list is virtually endless. So, yes, majority vote does play into it, I just wouldn’t say that it would never be presented like this:

“Today, we bring up a national referendum: will our nation be founded upon humanism, or will it be founded upon objectivism? The majority will decide.”
Do you then believe that religion will not disappear completely, but will become more diverse and personalized?
Do you believe that science could ever be a point of unification that religion once held?
Do you believe that the future of religion will be better or worse in the perspective you believe it will evolve towards?
#69
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
If religion wasn't " around " in the " future "   ie 10 seconds. 
Then they'd invent one. 
Unlessssssssss, 
One cant make a couple of bucks from religion  or a gain a little control out of it. 
I mean. 
It aint like you do that shit for free is it ? 

Its not like you make up a bunch of shit simply because you have the fucking love of jesus down in ya heart. 

One has to make a few bucks . 
You fucking have to. 

Think of it as a ummm. 
A Leagal Ponzie scheme. 

Stuff it.
Start one yorself  and collect  10cents of every player. 

Myself , , im all about the Bitches,  so instead  of money incentives , im a have me five maybe six smoking hot wives. 
religion makes it possible to have 5 wives. 
Im sure other shit might,  but  Its just,,,,,,,,, religion did it. 

#70
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Critical-Tim
Do you then believe that religion will not disappear completely, but will become more diverse and personalized?
I have no belief one way or the other on that. What I am saying is that humans need a philosophical framework in which to function in the world, deity or no deity.

Do you believe that science could ever be a point of unification that religion once held?
No, because science is a method, a tool, a means to an end but not an end itself. It does not even pretend to answer certain philosophical questions, such as:  why does anything exist? Why are we here, and what should I do to live a fulfilling and meaningful life?

Do you believe that the future of religion will be better or worse in the perspective you believe it will evolve towards?
I have no idea. As Yogi Berra said, “Predictions are hard to make— especially about the future.”



Topic's author
#71
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@cristo71
Do you then believe that religion will not disappear completely, but will become more diverse and personalized?
I have no belief one way or the other on that. What I am saying is that humans need a philosophical framework in which to function in the world, deity or no deity.
If I understand you correctly, you believe that religion is not necessary for a society, but it does require a sort of philosophical framework. In which case, you believe that it's possible for society to exist with or without religion.

Do you believe that science could ever be a point of unification that religion once held?
No, because science is a method, a tool, a means to an end but not an end itself. It does not even pretend to answer certain philosophical questions, such as:  why does anything exist? Why are we here, and what should I do to live a fulfilling and meaningful life?
Do you then believe that philosophy addresses metaphysical concepts, while science does not, and is restricted only to empirical evidence?

Based on my research, here is what I found.
Here are some possible definitions, along with some possible ways to view philosophy as a branch of science or as independent of science:
I accept the definition that science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. I also believe that philosophy is attempting to accomplish the same thing through the means of conceptual philosophies (metaphysics). Ultimately, science is a method of acquiring knowledge, and philosophy is a specific method of acquiring knowledge, in which I view philosophy as a subcategory of science. Do you agree or see it differently, please explain why?

If indeed philosophy is a subcategory of science, then it would be accurate to say that people could rely on science without religion if humanity does not need religion but a philosophical framework.
Topic's author
#72
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Do you believe that all religions are that way, or is it the person behind the religion that determines this? Please explain why?
Topic's author
#73
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@FLRW
Yes, religion definitely has negative aspects. Do you believe religion is not naturally positive or negative, but a means of unification, and that which they are unified by determines whether it is good or evil?
#74
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Critical-Tim
Karl Marx famously describes religion as the “opiate of the masses.” Marx argues that religion is an ideological tool that legitimates and defends the interests of the dominant, wealthy classes in the population. It does so in part by placating the poor and exploited classes. Faced with an arduous and seemingly unjust life in this world, the poor and exploited at least can look forward to a more perfect existence in the afterlife. To reach that afterlife, however, one must peacefully and quietly persevere through life’s tribulation—respecting the life, liberty, and (especially) private property of others. In this way, religion functions primarily conservatively. It seeks to preserve the status quo, which, consequently, serves the “haves” rather than the “have nots.” 
Topic's author
#75
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@FLRW
Yes, I am familiar with the phrase, though I did not recall who had quoted it. I too could present quotes from philosophers in about every perspective you could imagine with evidence to back up their claims. However, I was asking what your perspective is, and why you personally believe what you say. I personally do not care what some famous individual quoted or once said, I only care about the logic and rationality that was put into the conception of an idea. Moreover, to claim that religion is simply an opiate of the masses did not take much thought (aka he's no genius).
#76
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Critical-Tim
I disagree that philosophy is a subset of science. If anything, it’s the other way around. If you read the first link you provided, you will read that the scientific method originated from philosophy, and it was originally called “natural philosophy.” Here is the summary the article provides:

“1.Philosophy and science are two studies and domains. Philosophy came first and became the basis for science, formerly known as natural philosophy. Both studies have many branches or fields of study and make use reasoning, questioning, and analysis. The main difference is in the way they work and treat knowledge.
2.Science is concerned with natural phenomena, while philosophy attempts to understand the nature of man, existence, and the relationship that exists between the two concepts.
3.”Science” comes from a Latin word (scientia), while “philosophy” was derived from the Greek “philosophia.”
4.Another common element between the two studies is that they both try to explain situations and find answers. Philosophy does this by using logical argumentation, while science utilizes empirical data. Philosophy’s explanations are grounded in arguments of principles, while science tries to explain based on experiment results, observable facts, and objective evidence.
5.Science is used for instances that require empirical validation, while philosophy is used for situations where measurements and observations cannot be applied. Science also takes answers and proves them as objectively right or wrong.
6.Subjective and objective questions are involved in philosophy, while only some objective questions can be related in science. Aside from finding answers, philosophy also involves generating questions. Meanwhile, science is only concerned with the latter.
7.Philosophy creates knowledge through thinking; science does the same by observing.
8.Science is also a defined study, in contrast to philosophy, which can be applied to many extensive areas of discipline.”

Topic's author
#77
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@cristo71
I suppose it would be determined by one's belief in the nature of the world. It is my belief that the world is materialistic, and as a result everything is merely a projection of the physical. Being that the description of science is to understand the natural world, and I see philosophy as a means to view the natural world through a specific lens, it seems to me that philosophy is a more fixated way of understanding the world, where science is a broader way to understand the world. I do acknowledge that you pointed out philosophy came first, perhaps it is possible that a specific lens of understanding the world was created before they understood the broader scope of the world in general and created a broader goal. Ultimately, I see the metaphysical as merely the (non-existing but real) conception that is rooted within the physical nature of the world. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but do you understand my perspective, and how does it relate to yours?
#78
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Critical-Tim
I suppose it would be determined by one's belief in the nature of the world. It is my belief that the world is materialistic, and as a result everything is merely a projection of the physical.
I, too, am a materialist, but I still acknowledge the limits of what science is meant for. For example, capitalism (and its various subcategories) does not require metaphysical or supernatural belief; neither does socialism (and its various subcategories). Does science help you choose which economic system or which mixture of a mixed economic system to employ? No, because science does not provide guiding principles for all human endeavors. Science is used after guiding principles are chosen, not before.

Being that the description of science is to understand the natural world, and I see philosophy as a means to view the natural world through a specific lens, it seems to me that philosophy is a more fixated way of understanding the world, where science is a broader way to understand the world.
Again, I see it the other way around:  philosophy provides a broad lens or a wide variety of lenses, whereas science provides a specific lens.

I do acknowledge that you pointed out philosophy came first, perhaps it is possible that a specific lens of understanding the world was created before they understood the broader scope of the world in general and created a broader goal. Ultimately, I see the metaphysical as merely the (non-existing but real) conception that is rooted within the physical nature of the world. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but do you understand my perspective, and how does it relate to yours?
I sort of understand your perspective. To me, it seems that what you espouse is called scientism (which I mentioned earlier in a list)— the belief that science can address all human endeavors. Alas, it is usually used as a pejorative accusing the system of having an excessive trust in science, precisely because it is being applied outside of its scope.
#79
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Critical-Tim
I belive they all have to like, start that way. 
A way to gain. 

Every religion starts because,   a person or persons wants to get a " group " up and running. 
Back in the day you could get others to tend to your crops and shit. 
Or just coloect one cent for every person in your group . 
Buttttttt. It appears like its all about ,  Getting a group up and running. 
Things like starting a diffrent denomination looks like easiest way of achieving this. 
And just following the Abrahamic recipe. 

I feel it was a good move to " adopt " like the first chunk of a ummmmm " jewish " bible. 
Can i say that ? 
But it was real real smart to have for example.  Jesus being like a king bloody jew.  
As I belive it was even real real smart like for the inventors of the Muslim groups to " acknowledge " jesus, but switching it up perfectly. 
Thats the same move the " Christian "  movment, ( CAN I SAY ? ) did. 
Thus making the far fetch ness .   ( not a word ) 
Thus making like all the over the top , theatrical drama , fair enough to consider. 

No i don't know where im going now buttttttt.
Religion is  ( A STRICT FOR PROFIT BUSINESS )    It definitely is now would you agree.? 
And it appears to me that thats how they started.  On the premise.  

Obviously there could  of been. " religions " started on lkke a good faith trip or shit. Buttttt thats like a crap Ponzie. 

Its 
Operation.  ☆☆ GET A GROUP UP AND RUNNING ☆☆
You can gain from that,  FULL FUCKING STOP

ACTUALLY
Hang on. 
The atheists believe religion has been around longer then religious people hey ? 
You could probably fucking angle that for a argument hey ? 
Ha, i find that funny.  But thats a different post . 

But Tim .
Hey tim .
Have a great weekend 
And sorry if you cant understand my scribble.  
If one can understand scripture,  one can read one of my posts. 

#80
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Don't  say it Deb. 


It has to be embarrassing to christians to mention the
○○○○○○○○○○○    approximate  number of denominations ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○they got , 

I like to just say . " LOTS" .   
 instead bammmmmmmmmming that horrible number up there.   ( and ya'll know that number )

They got fucking " LOTS " of em.

But lets just all not talk about it hey ? 
fffffffffffffffff .

HAS  2  B  EMBARRASSING.  
I mean .
IT FUCKING IS EMBARRASSING.  (  number of Christian denominations ) 

Pull ya heads in. 
This aint no cattle train.

WANKERS 

' catches breath' 
' cleans up spit ' 


Good game.
Good game.  
#81
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Thusssssssss bringing to life this story.

I Bet ya $10 bux.
The church you go to. 
Yes you. 
is owned  and or strated by a person whom heard a msg from god telling him to sell alll of his stuff and build a church. 
  

I fuckin bet ya. 

RIGHT?

Well you've  heard that before .

RIGHT. ?

Just type,   (  yep )

Ya insta fall for that shit.? 

You where told thats how your ummmm, " church " come to be. 
For pureeeeeee  fucking love.   And Happy happy joy joy.


Picture opening a new church for fucking shits and giggles.  
Costing someone.  $30,000   to $ 50,000 grand a month so you can go to the prayer and the singing nonsense you guys do. 

Lose cash fist over fist for the pure fun of it. 


#82
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Religion is asking for a well written out knew religious group , total nonsense like the other s butttttt, with the ability to umm change things .  Its not like anyone needs to really belive it. 
Its there to . 
Simply make a complete mockery of the way we have to let "religious" groups  change shit.

This religion  will right the wrongs like. 
There has to be Christmas trees at Christmas,  every 20ft.
People have to say merry Christmas. 
Ya know what i mean?  
Not these but shit like this. 
Allllllll the,   ( no you can't do this  ) 
And .
No "this" or " that"  offends us. 


A well written religious group to make a complete and utter mock of every bit of religious  stupidness 
We change it back.  A anti religion if you will. 
But with sensible  considerations

Oh and its tax free. 
Sooooooo ummmmmm yeah. 
Cool.

' kicks dirt' 

#83
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
The device is the new religious master Deb.

Head down flick the fingers and pray to the information.

New device Sir.

New contract Madam.

(Or should I say They).

Sign here and give us your money.

Humans are,

BRILLIANT.

Well, one or two are.

The rest just drool over tattooed babes in next to nothing underwear or vegan burgers or MMA fighters kicking the shit or body builders or Russians and Ukrainians blowing themselves up or cosmetically enhanced ageing bimbos with lips like giant sausages or blokes in frocks and knickers with plastic faces with or without a penis, and who cares about a penis these days anyway, just stick something up my arse and call me Lily for GODS sake.

Yep, online streaming canonized human travesty is the new religion Deb.
#84
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Zed. Hi pal, miss you buddy.

But yeah
You did cluck like a chicken three times before adressing me hey Zed. 
Its disrespectful if you didn't.   ( this is just another rule of this religion.  its simply   to make religious people feel uncomfortable. )  
They start thinking . 
Do i bow ? 
Do i kertsy and shit like that. 
Next thing you have too wear a special frigging  hat inside certain buildings and crap nonsense.

Soooooo
If they dont want to do go along with what this new made up religion asks.
And or atleast show the ummmm , commen courtesy that the non religious and the " opposite " religious folks have too.    well fuck there's too. 

Good day boss.
#85
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
When we talk about religions in the future and snit. 
Religion now would still have to include 
Allllllllllll the fucking Egyptian shit and Norse nonsense and crap are still here today right? 
Its not like you can just all  give it up kind of deal.  

In so much as .  if one or two blokes " today "  still believe in ra and stuff then. Does that mean they are still a religion. 



Ps
What about if no one believed in a certain god or gods for like decades  then one day one bloke starts again. 


#86
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Its not like you can just all  give it up kind of deal
Well, you can give up on religion. However, its nice to believe in God and have a little daily rituals. It should not be given up if there is nothing to replace it.

#87
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Cluck Cluck Cluck Deb.

And roll up you trouser legs and sing like a Dingo.


Norse and Egyptian are generally classified under History these days Deb.

But there's still a lot of nutty stuff out  there classified under bonkers.
#88
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Most lives become a daily ritual.

With or without a GOD.

No matter how avant-garde some might think they are.

All that depilation for the want of almost intangible beachwear and the perfect cleft.


And then they go and spoil it all.

By doing something stupid

Like a tattoo.

(A la Frank and Nancy)
#89
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
The ritual of waking up sunday morning and thinking,  darn it ! 
I gots to go down the road to the building god wants us to alllllllll meet at.  

God should of known that not every person on earth can gather in one building.  

Thats what he ask right?
I mean 
We are all his " children " right ?
Sooooooooo.
God  "asking "  us to meet at a  clubhouse instantly divides.
Fucking instantly.  
For There is your church,  and there is one a suburb or two over.
Same denomination or not , its a TOTALLY different thing. 
Toats diff.

We could of never all fit in one church like building. 

What god really is asking issss.
He wants me going to that building over here and John going to that one over there with Rebecca going there, and Peter and Katrina in that one. 

Surly He could of never expected us all to stay on the same page and shit.

God  "set" up his religion EXACTLY the same way that false fake religions that he watch for years come and go. 

EXACTLY THE SAME BUT ONLY DIFFRENT. 


#90
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
You guys should push the saying. 
<<  GOD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS  >>
Its a horrible saying buttttt, it kind of works dun it.
I mean, it clarifies everythihg.  

Its like.
Yes ..
Yes god does work in mysterious  ways so just leave it at that and MOVE ON. 

I SAID......   MOVE ON. 

See You can't really argue with this. 

His a Mysterious mutha fuker